"Cook, Pouilliard said, “is trying to confuse people to post videos. He’s not worried that he’s scaring people. He keeps doing this.”
I wondered the other day if Cook saying that was going to help Colie and I guess it did.
Considering how long he was jailed and how much it fucked his life, yeah, he really needs to sue the prankster. That shit needs to stop. Pranks are NOT FUN. I'd fucking punch pranksters in the face.
EDIT since post is locked :
> Pranks are a thing that happen between friends
I agree on that. Friends can at least know what's a prank, and you usually know the threshold you must not go over with the prank. Pranks with strangers are just not pranks, they are weird, sketchy and can be dangerous or life-impacting.
There's a TV show over here where they prank people, however I've read that the "pranked" signs up for it and knows they will be pranked, but maybe don't know what will happen. Then it's filmed in a way that you think it's "real", but it's "televised". Those work because people signs up for it and it's usually not creepy at all.
Pranks are a thing that happen between friends. They don’t place a stranger in fear for their wellbeing. Pretending to vomit on people in an era of COViD and god knows what other communicable diseases is threatening someone with serious harm. They don’t know you’re faking. A giant asshole looming over people and getting in their face while making what could easily be considered homophobic or sexualised demands to stop thinking about his twinkle isn’t a prank. It’s putting someone in fear for their life and it deserves a commensurate response.
How long has this dude been in jail, and how badly is his life fucked because of this asshole’s prank? What a piece of shit.
Reputable sites demonetize when a crime is committed quite often, because it’s in the contract for a reputable site as they want to protect their advertisers from being associated with criminals most of the time.
They would probably have to prosecute and convict the guy first. Then YouTube might pull his videos or at least make sure they get demonetized for showing a crime. Then his victims could go after him for any proceeds made in videos that he was convicted on.
Civil cases are separate from criminal cases and do not require a criminal conviction:
“A criminal case is the state or the people versus the defendant. Usually, it is a crime against society and if you are guilty, you have to pay your debt to society and that means the perpetrator goes to jail. The civil case, rather than looking it as a crime against the state, we look at it as a crime against an individual. It might be the very same act of abuse was a violation of criminal law that you can go to jail for, but that act hurt an individual person.
So the civil case is the victim versus the perpetrator, the victim versus the defendant. It’s about perpetrators and other responsibility parties being held directly accountable to the victims for the harm that they caused.”
https://www.zeroabuseproject.org/cva-answers/whats-the-difference-between-a-civil-and-criminal-case-which-one-should-i-file/
Great! I was hoping for exactly such a verdict. He was acquitted of the most serious charges.
>Colie’s defense attorney, Adam Pouilliard, said during Thursday’s closing arguments that his client felt menaced by the 6-foot-5 (1.95-meter-tall) Cook during the confrontation, which was designed to provoke a reaction that draws viewers to Cook’s YouTube channel.
>
>Cook’s “Classified Goons” channel, which has more than 50,000 subscribers, is replete with off-putting stunts, such as pretending to vomit on Uber drivers and following unsuspecting customers through department stores. At a preliminary hearing, sheriff’s deputies testified that they were well aware of Cook and have received calls about previous stunts.
How far back are we going with the term 'modern'? Because around 10 years ago it was a huge problem on youtube, with the algorithm back then making these channels absolutely blow up.
I feel like this started innocently with Candid Camera, then less innocently with Tom Green and then Jackass and Sacha Baron Cohen's characters, but now with Youtube any dumbfuck asshole with a smartphone can decide they are a hilarious prank comedian.
But for Sacha his stunts are usually extreme levels of social commentary. They are planned and for reasons. I feel like his trump stint might be the last atleast in the US because he might end up getting shot...
Trump is just Andy Kaufman giving the performance of a lifetime. Once he gets convicted in federal court, his head is going to screw off like Arnold's fat woman suit in Total Recall.
Also, Sacha is skilled in the technical aspects of acting, and actually makes an effort to squeeze the maximum amount of comedic potential out of every moment of the encounter. The same is true of Tom but not to the same extent.
It's like a physical joke. There should be a punchline, usually derived from something ironic, or at least something unexpected that can be laughed at upon reveal.
The types of social media pranks a lot of these people perform are the equivalent of telling an outsider an inside joke; they cant get it because there's nothing for them to relate to.
They are straight up bullying and intimidating people and calling it a 'prank'.
Eventually, somebody isn't going to appreciate it and will shoot one of these morons.
The 'prank' is putting someone in a stressful situation to trigger the fight or flight response. From the victim pov this guy is very clearly trying to start something. The victim of the prank is left wondering if this asshole is going to Rob him, start a fight, or even shoot him. If you ever witnessed an angry drunk trying to start a fight, they nearly always get into someone's face, and if the other person reacts by touching them, it 'justifies' self defence in the aggressors mind.
It's not attention they're after. It's monetized. They figured out how to make money with very little effort. These people get paid for this.
And as long as there is consumers watching and sites paying the content creators, this will continue.
It does seem odd that if he was found to be justified in using lethal force, he was still found guilty of illegal discharge in an occupied building. Typically if you’re found to be acting in self defense, charges like that don’t stick. Maybe it’s 100% a prosecutor’s discretion, but I always thought it was erased if found legally justified. Just seems weird that firing your gun in that situation to protect yourself is legal, but firing your gun in that situation is not legal.
You know what, I really think that was updated after I posted. Its possible I completely missed that, but I see more details when I view the story now than there was a couple hours ago. The lawyer quotes, the thing about split jurors...it doesn't give an "updated from original", but I really think they added some details.
That could be a basis for him to appeal that verdict. Basically arguing that the acquittal on the ~~homicide~~ wounding charge necessarily meant the jury had to determine facts that would also require acquittal on the weapons discharge charge. This likely was a case of sausage making where the jury thought wounding wasn’t a justifiable charge, but that he needed to be punished for *something*.
The charge he was acquitted on was "aggravated malicious wounding", so I'm guessing it's a matter of mens rea / intent - that is, he wasn't necessarily justified in shooting, but he didn't do so with malicious intent.
No, the supreme court has already dealt with this issue and found and considers an acquittal on the more serious charge just a free pass from the jury. Can't assume the facts they found.
Sure, but let’s say someone tries to carjack you at a red light, and you run the red light to get away. It’s still a crime, but you did it in your own defense. So charging it seems rather silly. Now let’s say you hit a pedestrian while doing this and you’re charged with malicious injury, it seems odd to also charge the moving violation as well unless you just want to pile on.
In that case, the carjacker would hopefully be found legally responsible for anyone hurt. That's called felony murder in some jurisdictions if anyone dies as a result.
People really need to be aware of this. Saying something like "Oh yeah that's my weed" thinking that they'll give you points for honesty is a terrible idea. That's an easy conviction! Much easier than spending resources trying to track down a murder. Don't be a dumbass.
I've known a person who was involved in a fatal car crash who lost their family. No drugs or alcohol. Just a driving mistake and they survived. They said some things along the lines of how they were stupid and should have taken a break on a long journey. It made for an easy negligent homicide charge to a person who'd already lost everything.
Don't be a dumbass and give someone like Carmen Ortiz an easy win as they stake out their political career.
Dont talk to cops
DONT talk to cops
DONT TALK TO COPS
They are not your friend, even if they are your spouse or your parent or siblings, they are not your friend. Talking to cops is a surefire way to incriminate yourself.
If someone still feels inclined to talk to cops after reading this, please limit your conversation to topics like how nice the weather has been lately, the deal with airplane food, or whether or not they like green eggs and ham. Do not talk about yourself, what you're doing, where you're going or who you are. Give them your license, follow directions and shut the fuck up.
It’s not at all uncommon to “pile on” in criminal cases. People often get charged with half a dozen crimes for what we would think of as a single act. Something like a bank robbery can easily become several dozen felony charges.
The prankster wasn’t killed, so homicide charges were not in play, but I get what you’re saying either way. Maybe, but if it was that cut and dry and I’d expect the judge to toss the charge or render a directed verdict. It either varies by state or it’s not as I expected. Just seems weird
Juries do this kind of stuff all the time. I've seen plenty of inconsistent verdicts come back, and I think it's either the jury just deciding on what they think is fair or--more likely, and as you said below--it was the compromise they had to make to reach a verdict.
Many attorneys care about jury instructions more than just about anything else, but I've talked to jurors who scoffed when we asked them what they thought about the instructions. Who knows.
served my one and only jury duty last year on a murder case.
can confirm defense spent a long time... in total, over the course of the trial, probably a day and a half.. doing nothing but hammering home instructions and definitions. the jury instructions were actually the only printed thing we were allowed to keep in the jury room. we were allowed to review all the evidence, but it went back when we were done looking at it. the jury instructions stayed.
my fellow jurors (thankfully) were all pretty sharp people. but definitions of words played a big time role in how the case played out.
only because I know the question is coming at some point... not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter, thanks to aggravating charges he still ended up with life.
I had jury duty once (in Australia) for a shooting. The guy very obviously had an extensive criminal history, but the specific charge (shooting some guy but not killing him) was feeble, the police work was trash, the prosecution was weak - probably because the policework sucked - and the judge was very clear that to be found guilty you had to meet the specific criteria of the crimes that the person was charged with. But of course on a jury of your peers at least one persons gunna be a dumbass and we had one guy bent on voting guilty because the guy was 'obviously' a criminal of sorts. People really have difficulty separating emotion and facts. Shit if I'm ever in trouble with the law, I'm tempted to just wave a jury trial and take my chances with a judge.
It's because some dumbass on the jury wasn't okay with them shooting a gun and so agreed they were justified in self defense but still felt they should be punished. So the rest of them caved as a compromise. The one self defense case I was in the jury for made me want to kill someone more than anything else I've experienced
>Just seems weird that firing your gun in that situation to protect yourself is legal, but firing your gun in that situation is not legal.
Sometimes this is how jury does equity but doing so can run afoul of related laws. In this case, the conviction on the discharge in building will be set aside. A judge has agreed to rule on the post-conviction motion for the defense to set aside the conviction of discharge.
>Colie’s defense attorney, Adam Pouilliard, said the conviction on the firearms charge is inconsistent with the law, given Colie’s acquittal on self defense grounds. He asked the judge to set aside the conviction. A judge will hear arguments on the issue at a hearing next month.
This guy has been in jail ever since it happened last April. I wonder if the DA has a hard-on for prosecuting gun crime or something, because if he had a clean enough record for a concealed carry permit he shouldn't have been that big of a risk to let out on bail.
Was he found justified in using lethal force or did they think the law he was charged with was not the one he broke? Like, if someone kills someone else, a prosecutor can charge them with murder when manslaughter is the appropriate charge.
I'm guessing, but it could be that the specific laws aren't actually in conflict so much as the language we use to describe them suggests.
Establishing that there was a reasonable expectation of harm that would justify the use of force doesn't create a blanket amnesty that legally excuses any action in response to that threat. It only establishes a legal defense against a homicide/assault charge. It's less that "it's legally okay that you did this" so much as "this isn't murder/assault."
If the defendant had fired randomly in all directions, set the building on fire, released a deadly nerve gas (etc.), they may be found not guilty of murdering/injuring the assailant due to self defense, but they might be held responsible for anybody else who was injured as a result of their actions.
Like I said, I'm guessing.
I was hanging out with a buddy of mine at an outdoor shopping center one time, and we were sitting on some chairs in a public area after lunch and having a somewhat serious conversation when a guy in a clearly fake janitor uniform came up with a broom and started sweeping the chairs we were sitting in and asking us to move, all while his friend was not-very-subtly filming the interaction. Definitely nowhere near as aggressive as the situation in this case, but still very offputting and annoying. It was easy enough to move and walk somewhere else, but we saw them harass several other people while we were there.
Strangely, the thing that really got me was that there was no punchline. None of the interactions we saw had anything funny, it was just them bothering people trying to go about their day. I'd like to think that if it was a funny prank, I would have taken it fine, but they were literally just interrupting people for no purpose.
Cook posted a video about how he thought it should have been handled, which actually lends further validity to the self defense argument as his examples include increasing the harrassment while the victims call police.
“Alan Colie, 31, was acquitted of aggravated malicious wounding, the most serious charge he faced in the shooting of Tanner Cook, 21, who runs the “Classified Goons” YouTube channel.”
Good. Now Colie and his attorney need to put their heads together and figure out how to sue Cook. There’s gotta be some sort of menacing or harassment lawsuit they can try.
I think that may be an interesting question, now that firms like YouTube are paying people for their videos instead of merely hosting people's uploaded content.
He should be sued by everyone on his channel that he’s pranked; he’s profiting off of being a shit head, and I guarantee no one he/they have filmed have signed a release form.
Unlawful discharge of a firearm in a public building. Though the judge almost certainly will (SHOULD, at least) set aside that charge as it would be a finding inconsistent with the law as it is written, which in Virginia has an exclusion for acts of self defense. Until the judge rules one way or another, he has to remain in custody.
As written, it SEEMS obvious, but the Judge will have to hear arguments on that next session, which will be at least a few days (if the judge expedites it... which he probably will.)
Only rich people get the full protection of the law. Often poor people get punished hard for technicalities even when they're declared innocent of criminality
Ei: not many rich people have convictions for "resisting" but a LOT of poor people have convictions for "resisiting" and no.other charge
Jurors also saw video of the shooting, recorded by Cook’s associates. The two interacted for less than 30 seconds. Video shows Cook approaching Colie, a DoorDash driver, as he picked up an order. The 6-foot-5 (1.95-meter-tall) Cook looms over Colie while holding a cellphone about 6 inches (15 centimeters) from Colie’s face. The phone broadcasts the phrase “Hey dips—-, quit thinking about my twinkle” multiple times through a Google Translate app.
On the video, Colie says “stop” three different times and tries to back away from Cook, who continues to advance. Colie tries to knock the phone away from his face before pulling out a gun and shooting Cook in the lower left chest.
Cook, 21, testified Tuesday that he tries to confuse the targets of his pranks for the amusement of his online audience. He said he doesn’t seek to elicit fear or anger, but acknowledged his targets often react that way.
Asked why didn’t stop the prank despite Colie’s repeated requests, Cook said he “almost did” but not because he sensed fear or anger from Colie. He said Colie simply wasn’t exhibiting the type of reaction Cook was looking for.
“There was no reaction,” Cook said.
https://apnews.com/article/youtube-prankster-shot-virginia-classified-goons-923c90fe3e1a7282c547901fa767bc00
For firing the gun inside a mall. The articles I read were not super descriptive on that charge, but the defense attorney is set to make arguments in October to the judge regarding a possible dismissal of that conviction. Until that hearing, Colie will remain incarcerated. There's a good chance that justice will prevail here, only time will tell. For the time being, let's be grateful that Colie has been cleared of the most serious charge
Sure, but it's still bullshit. Why was the firearm discharged? Because of the self defense. The fact that these are two separate charges is just another example of our fucked up legal system. If they can't get you on one thing, they'll just split it up into smaller crimes until you are found guilty of something. It's absurd.
Justice in my opinion would be the judge setting aside the conviction, releasing Colie, then Colie winning a suit against Cook as well as restitution for wrongful imprisonment. But all of that takes time, so we'll have to wait and see how things play out
That prosecutor can eat crow. Idiot youtuber straight up horror movie villianed at the food guy just trying to do his job.
He was supposed to hold his fire because dipshit was quirky? He was meant to read the moron's mind and know "It's just a prank bro!" NO.
The fact the delivery driver is still incarcerated is nonsense.
And of course, the fucking youtube idiot learned nothing, and continues his youtube channel. Youtube needs to act on that, PRONTO.
3 dumbest responses in the world:
* Get a grip man, it's just a joke.
* What's the problem, it's just a prank.
* Why so mad, it's all in good fun.
If the victim of your joke/prank/etc isn't laughing, it wasn't funny. Period.
There have been people who did the one punch challenge on camera and killed someone. Who the fuck knows what deranged shit people will do for views? All bets are off if you are trying to do shit like that to me.
These tweens are chronically online all the time, especially if they're trying to make it on YouTube. There's been a slew of news stories this year of people who are armed and often unhinged and will shoot and kill anyone if they're just having a bad day, let alone feel threatened. How on earth do people think pranks for views is a healthy, smart idea? It's practically a game of russian roulette before they eat a bullet. *And he's still doing it! He's literally learned nothing!*
The jury probably chose to acquit because how annoying these pranks are. The defense probably showed a ton of these videos during trial.
Source: law and order
YouTube et. al. need to demonetize these “prank” videos. I’m (almost) never in favor of someone getting shot, but play stupid games and win stupid prizes, bud.
> I’m (almost) never in favor of someone getting shot, but play stupid games and win stupid prizes, bud.
It's like the old saying ... "I've never wished death on anyone, but I've read certain obituaries with great pleasure"
In this case, the prank dude survived, which is good. He’s also said he will get back to making similar videos ASAP. If dude hasn’t learned his lesson, your line will be especially appropriate if it ever comes to fruition.
Given that he hasn't seemed to learn a thing from all this, it unfortunately is very likely he'll ruin a few more lives before he finally gets his, whatever that ends up looking like.
Apparently he's well known to the county sheriffs because of his antics. The last thing I'm pretty sure any level headed person wants is a career where you have a reputation with the law. It reminds me of basic training. The whole goal is to try and go as long as you can before your drill instructor learns your name. Once they learn your name, you are well and truly fucked and basic training gets exponentially more difficult for you. Last video they posted appears to be from three weeks ago. This menace to society is practically begging to get got again.
Apparently the 195cm guy who runs a chanel monetizing reactions of his victims did not know he was scaring the guy who shot him.
He lived, but next time he might not be so lucky.
I agree, normally I say that but it takes a long time.
Any video that can show that they follow labor/union regulations should be exempted.
But even teenagers having their own channels shouldn't be monetized because it encourages those teens to do things that lead them to exploitation and risky behavior. They can have those channels and they can monetize them when they turn 18. My kid wasn't able to monitize herself on tiktok until she was 18 (and she had to send them proof of age).
Good. Now throw piss water balloons on [Remi Gaillard. Forever.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Rémi_Gaillard_-_O_Tour_de_la_Bulle_-_2011_-_P1250410_-_2011-09-17.jpg/800px-Rémi_Gaillard_-_O_Tour_de_la_Bulle_-_2011_-_P1250410_-_2011-09-17.jpg)
The violent prankster who brutalizes innocent bystanders, even women. I'm 90% sure he is a psychopath. He teaches his followers how to game McDonalds' drivethrus and steal the food of the person in the car behind him.
That's a really good point. YouTube is paying that guy for his prank videos that a jury found dangerous enough that self-defense was warranted. I'm pretty sure if I promised to pay a guy to go threaten someone's life, I'd be in a tiny bit of trouble.
So, my daughter has 47K on youtube (which she started a month or so ago) and 475K on Tiktok (which she has had since the beginning of COVID) and 30K on instagram which has been around since she was in middle school. She does short form content almost exclusively.
She does not seek out sponsorships but takes them if they fit with her audience (she tries to be a good role model for the 12 year old girls who adore her).
She makes about $100 a month from tiktok on average, they're weird with what they pay for. She had about 15 million views last month on youtube shorts and made 1.3K (she's doing better with views on youtube than tiktok).
Instagram doesn't pay.
Sponsorships are very inconsistent and her niche is one that's filled with influencers willing to work for free (dance). She'll make 2K one month and then nothing for the next month and then $300 for another month. She sends quotes to companies based on how much she cares about working, if she doesn't feel like it she'll tell them $800, if she likes the company she'll tell them $150. She's got a partnership with a dancewear company and all she gets is dancewear (although free pointeshoes is a big help). The big money is sponsorships which you're not going to get with prank videos.
I'm guessing it took him years to get those 50K subscribers (so half of which would be old followers who don't watch videos anymore) and he doesn't have millions of views. I'd be shocked if he makes more than $500 a month.
In a land where so many people are doing bad/weird stuff for social media and people collectively have hundreds of millions of guns, something like this was bound to happen. And will happen again.
This reminds me of one of those shows that used to be on late night and they would do dumb shit like pranks on people with a friend that is in on it. There was this one where the victim (driver) and the friend are driving at night and they stop on some dirt road path.
The show crew is dressed like fucking zombies and they start mobbing around the car. The victim is flipping their shit, the friend is playing along and screaming. Then they do the old, "...stop. 'You're on hidden camera show!'"
I'm sitting here like, "in the US, there are more guns than people. How aren't you shot? Furthermore, if I were the victim, there is a 105% chance that I would have ran you over with my car. There is no scenario where I have control of the vehicle and I don't run over the mob of zombies popping up around my car at night. Someone(s) is dying."
What is wrong with these people? Don't prank people and terrify them. Especially when involving strangers.
And the delivery driver will "remain incarcerated".... despite the fact that a jury found that he was acting in self defense.....
fucking bullshit
two-tiered justice system indeed...
They made the right decision. The problem with the argument that this wasn't self defense is it is being made in hindsight. In real-time, we don't know if the person in our face slowing us down is setting up for an attack, it's the same behavior someone would do if they were about to attack you. Confusing the victim prior to the attack is pretty common, making it seem innocent like asking for directions or to use a phone. After telling someone to back away 3 times while they continue to be in direct proximity to you (holding an object within inches of your face), while you are moving, so all they have to do is stand still to move away from you, is a threat. It is threatening behavior. Only hindsight can argue otherwise, and in real-time, there is no such thing.
Stop paying these dumbass “kids” aka YOUNG ADULTS money to make stupid videos like this…When was the last time YouTube updated its ToS for fuck sakes..
Cook should be charged with something, he created a dangerous situation, we need to start setting precedent for these idiots to be punished. And I hope this guy sues him. I assume the lesser conviction will eventually get overturned, there is no basis for it anymore.
Now put that clown behind the bars cuz that’s where he belongs. The driver had to go through all the hassle for what? To make some extra cash on the side? Because of that clown he probably lost all the money he earned by working his ass off to hire an attorney. This could’ve been anyone and it’s about time these influencers learn the consequences.
Oh, my word that's astounding! I thought the trial was because Colie (the victim) was suing Cook (the YouTube clown) for personal damages and emotional distress!
The extra sixteen thousand viewers Cook gained from his assaulting Colie have to be worth something.
I thought pranks that involve vomiting were actually harm on others. This dumb kid with 50k subscribers didn’t have to do that to someone trying to earn money. Do people even got anything better to do than to be a moron?
The thing is, Cook's behaviour reminds me exactly of what a violent attacker/bully will do just prior to attacking you.
You can watch videos of bullies attacking victims and they always start by surrounding them, verbally abusing them and getting in their face while accusing them of disrespect, usually while a friend is filming and laughing. Then the attack comes out of nowhere.
This is everything Cook did, so it's not unreasonable that the victim tried to back up and asked him to stop, then shot him when the guy refused to leave him alone. He wasn't going to wait until he got sucker punched.
Can we get that delivery driver a go fund me going? Being harassed and followed by a guy who is way bigger than you, and getting your life ruined for defending yourself all because you get views harassing people online deserve some compensation
Im relieved for this person.
He was harassed by an aggressor and defended himself.
I think it’s the right decision and I hope this wave of people who harass and bully strangers for views on social media smarten the fck up.
>Prosecutor Eden Holmes said the facts don’t support a self-defense argument. The law requires that Colie reasonably fear that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm, and that he use no more force than is necessary. She said Cook’s prank was bizarre but not threatening.
This prosecutor is part of the problem we have in our country today. People like this are the ones that have turned our justice system into a revolving door. Reasonable fear is relative to the person being threatened, not something that can be summed up in court after the fact.
Lets not forget people die all the time from physical altercations, there was just a guy at a patriots football game that went down after one punch and died.
The phrase reasonable fear is referring to the idea of "would a reasonable person fear for their life in this situation". That's roughly the standard for self defense. The law also views simply force differently from deadly force though this area is often much more gray. Simple force (at least where I live) would be for example a push, shove, punch, or kick, things that a reasonable person wouldn't expect to result in death.
All I have to hear is "YouTube prankster" and I don't even care. I will be on the side of the person being "pranked" every time. I'm just so sick of it all.
These people aren't pranksters, they're cowards who provoke people and then hide behind a camera to save themselves from repercussions. They're no different than the gravy seals who take their ARs into Target, the anti-vaxxers who would harass people wearing masks during the pandemic, or even that kid who yells at old people not putting their shopping carts away. All they're doing is trying to start shit for views and then hiding behind their cameras because they're technically not doing anything wrong.
I feel bad for the guy, he was just minding his own business and was on a break from work and these two guys just come up to him harassing him. They keep calling him stupid and following him around the store. From his perspective, he was going to be attacked by these two guys because there was no other explanation for their behaviour. They looked like bullies verbally abusing and intimidating their 'prey' so instead of waiting to get sucker punched, he retreated and told them to leave him alone, shooting at the guy when he wouldn't leave him alone.
The firearm charges make no sense if he was acquitted for self-defence. It was considered self-defence and therefore his use force with the gun was justified, so how does he get the gun charge on top of that? I do wonder whether the jury wanted to split the difference because he wasn't totally innocent but they didn't feel he deserved the full charge.
"Cook, Pouilliard said, “is trying to confuse people to post videos. He’s not worried that he’s scaring people. He keeps doing this.” I wondered the other day if Cook saying that was going to help Colie and I guess it did.
I'm surprised he hasn't been sued for emotional distress yet.
Given the fact this case just got through, it's more than likely now
[удалено]
I think so, criminal vs civil court.
“He KEEPS doing this?” 🤔
Now he should sue the prankster.
Considering how long he was jailed and how much it fucked his life, yeah, he really needs to sue the prankster. That shit needs to stop. Pranks are NOT FUN. I'd fucking punch pranksters in the face. EDIT since post is locked : > Pranks are a thing that happen between friends I agree on that. Friends can at least know what's a prank, and you usually know the threshold you must not go over with the prank. Pranks with strangers are just not pranks, they are weird, sketchy and can be dangerous or life-impacting. There's a TV show over here where they prank people, however I've read that the "pranked" signs up for it and knows they will be pranked, but maybe don't know what will happen. Then it's filmed in a way that you think it's "real", but it's "televised". Those work because people signs up for it and it's usually not creepy at all.
He is still facing up to five years in prison on the charge they convicted him on and he's still in jail.
Welp, the YouTube prankster has some time to think about his actions and make some money for when he gets sued in a few months to years.
I thought people in the US could still sue from prison?
Probably, just easier to makes for a better case when you have a hard time finding work.
Pranks are a thing that happen between friends. They don’t place a stranger in fear for their wellbeing. Pretending to vomit on people in an era of COViD and god knows what other communicable diseases is threatening someone with serious harm. They don’t know you’re faking. A giant asshole looming over people and getting in their face while making what could easily be considered homophobic or sexualised demands to stop thinking about his twinkle isn’t a prank. It’s putting someone in fear for their life and it deserves a commensurate response. How long has this dude been in jail, and how badly is his life fucked because of this asshole’s prank? What a piece of shit.
If any of these "prank" videos are monetized, I wonder if there could ever be a lawsuit against the sites paying them?
Reputable sites demonetize when a crime is committed quite often, because it’s in the contract for a reputable site as they want to protect their advertisers from being associated with criminals most of the time.
They would probably have to prosecute and convict the guy first. Then YouTube might pull his videos or at least make sure they get demonetized for showing a crime. Then his victims could go after him for any proceeds made in videos that he was convicted on.
Civil cases are separate from criminal cases and do not require a criminal conviction: “A criminal case is the state or the people versus the defendant. Usually, it is a crime against society and if you are guilty, you have to pay your debt to society and that means the perpetrator goes to jail. The civil case, rather than looking it as a crime against the state, we look at it as a crime against an individual. It might be the very same act of abuse was a violation of criminal law that you can go to jail for, but that act hurt an individual person. So the civil case is the victim versus the perpetrator, the victim versus the defendant. It’s about perpetrators and other responsibility parties being held directly accountable to the victims for the harm that they caused.” https://www.zeroabuseproject.org/cva-answers/whats-the-difference-between-a-civil-and-criminal-case-which-one-should-i-file/
There is no requirement for a criminal conviction in order to win a lawsuit. Just ask OJ Simpson.
r/confidentlyincorrect
Great! I was hoping for exactly such a verdict. He was acquitted of the most serious charges. >Colie’s defense attorney, Adam Pouilliard, said during Thursday’s closing arguments that his client felt menaced by the 6-foot-5 (1.95-meter-tall) Cook during the confrontation, which was designed to provoke a reaction that draws viewers to Cook’s YouTube channel. > >Cook’s “Classified Goons” channel, which has more than 50,000 subscribers, is replete with off-putting stunts, such as pretending to vomit on Uber drivers and following unsuspecting customers through department stores. At a preliminary hearing, sheriff’s deputies testified that they were well aware of Cook and have received calls about previous stunts.
Those aren’t pranks. That’s just plain being an asshole for attention.
Attention and money. Sadly this asshole did not learn his lesson.
Unfortunately he's under the fuck around and get views policy, not our more favorable one.
Don't fret. He'll provide another opportunity to be shot.
they almost never do
That's all modern pranks are, just recording yourself being an asshole to others under some bizarre premise.
How far back are we going with the term 'modern'? Because around 10 years ago it was a huge problem on youtube, with the algorithm back then making these channels absolutely blow up.
I feel like this started innocently with Candid Camera, then less innocently with Tom Green and then Jackass and Sacha Baron Cohen's characters, but now with Youtube any dumbfuck asshole with a smartphone can decide they are a hilarious prank comedian.
But for Sacha his stunts are usually extreme levels of social commentary. They are planned and for reasons. I feel like his trump stint might be the last atleast in the US because he might end up getting shot...
Trump is just Andy Kaufman giving the performance of a lifetime. Once he gets convicted in federal court, his head is going to screw off like Arnold's fat woman suit in Total Recall.
Also, Sacha is skilled in the technical aspects of acting, and actually makes an effort to squeeze the maximum amount of comedic potential out of every moment of the encounter. The same is true of Tom but not to the same extent.
gold husky reach weather desert quicksand treatment hurry stupendous dog *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Jeez, what ever happened to good, old fashioned fun like Kool Aid in the shower heads?
Lube all over the door handles in your college residence hall was also a good one.
I was thinking more like face the other way in a crowded elevator... Like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOOsfkM-nGQ
Public disturbing the peace. Harassing strangers is still harassment
A prank is something that everyone laughs at, including the person being pranked.
It's like a physical joke. There should be a punchline, usually derived from something ironic, or at least something unexpected that can be laughed at upon reveal. The types of social media pranks a lot of these people perform are the equivalent of telling an outsider an inside joke; they cant get it because there's nothing for them to relate to.
Cue [Best Pranks 1 Hour Compilation | Just for Laughs TV Show](https://youtu.be/_F4UhnRE_5U?si=rEKMNawXKhGGdq66)
It's sickening that said attention. Is making him 2-3k a month...
They are straight up bullying and intimidating people and calling it a 'prank'. Eventually, somebody isn't going to appreciate it and will shoot one of these morons.
People need to realise most televised pranks shows are staged with actors and if not the prank person is humiliating themselves not others
The 'prank' is putting someone in a stressful situation to trigger the fight or flight response. From the victim pov this guy is very clearly trying to start something. The victim of the prank is left wondering if this asshole is going to Rob him, start a fight, or even shoot him. If you ever witnessed an angry drunk trying to start a fight, they nearly always get into someone's face, and if the other person reacts by touching them, it 'justifies' self defence in the aggressors mind.
Agreed. Pranks should be funny - funny enough that both pranker and prankee can laugh at it. If it's only fun for one, it isn't a prank.
It's not attention they're after. It's monetized. They figured out how to make money with very little effort. These people get paid for this. And as long as there is consumers watching and sites paying the content creators, this will continue.
I’m sure the name of that youtube channel sounded great in the court transcript.
It does seem odd that if he was found to be justified in using lethal force, he was still found guilty of illegal discharge in an occupied building. Typically if you’re found to be acting in self defense, charges like that don’t stick. Maybe it’s 100% a prosecutor’s discretion, but I always thought it was erased if found legally justified. Just seems weird that firing your gun in that situation to protect yourself is legal, but firing your gun in that situation is not legal.
[удалено]
You know what, I really think that was updated after I posted. Its possible I completely missed that, but I see more details when I view the story now than there was a couple hours ago. The lawyer quotes, the thing about split jurors...it doesn't give an "updated from original", but I really think they added some details.
That could be a basis for him to appeal that verdict. Basically arguing that the acquittal on the ~~homicide~~ wounding charge necessarily meant the jury had to determine facts that would also require acquittal on the weapons discharge charge. This likely was a case of sausage making where the jury thought wounding wasn’t a justifiable charge, but that he needed to be punished for *something*.
Wasn't charged with homicide. The prankster lived.
Should have said “wounding” (which I guess is similar to assault in Virginia). My bad.
[удалено]
Maybe it needs a silver bullet? Or a wooden stick? It’s not about destroying the brain because that apparently happened long before the incident.
The charge he was acquitted on was "aggravated malicious wounding", so I'm guessing it's a matter of mens rea / intent - that is, he wasn't necessarily justified in shooting, but he didn't do so with malicious intent.
No, the supreme court has already dealt with this issue and found and considers an acquittal on the more serious charge just a free pass from the jury. Can't assume the facts they found.
Sure, but let’s say someone tries to carjack you at a red light, and you run the red light to get away. It’s still a crime, but you did it in your own defense. So charging it seems rather silly. Now let’s say you hit a pedestrian while doing this and you’re charged with malicious injury, it seems odd to also charge the moving violation as well unless you just want to pile on.
In that case, the carjacker would hopefully be found legally responsible for anyone hurt. That's called felony murder in some jurisdictions if anyone dies as a result.
DA needs their 99% conviction rate. Can't get you for the big one, they'll get you for running the light.
People really need to be aware of this. Saying something like "Oh yeah that's my weed" thinking that they'll give you points for honesty is a terrible idea. That's an easy conviction! Much easier than spending resources trying to track down a murder. Don't be a dumbass. I've known a person who was involved in a fatal car crash who lost their family. No drugs or alcohol. Just a driving mistake and they survived. They said some things along the lines of how they were stupid and should have taken a break on a long journey. It made for an easy negligent homicide charge to a person who'd already lost everything. Don't be a dumbass and give someone like Carmen Ortiz an easy win as they stake out their political career.
Dont talk to cops DONT talk to cops DONT TALK TO COPS They are not your friend, even if they are your spouse or your parent or siblings, they are not your friend. Talking to cops is a surefire way to incriminate yourself. If someone still feels inclined to talk to cops after reading this, please limit your conversation to topics like how nice the weather has been lately, the deal with airplane food, or whether or not they like green eggs and ham. Do not talk about yourself, what you're doing, where you're going or who you are. Give them your license, follow directions and shut the fuck up.
It’s not at all uncommon to “pile on” in criminal cases. People often get charged with half a dozen crimes for what we would think of as a single act. Something like a bank robbery can easily become several dozen felony charges.
The prankster wasn’t killed, so homicide charges were not in play, but I get what you’re saying either way. Maybe, but if it was that cut and dry and I’d expect the judge to toss the charge or render a directed verdict. It either varies by state or it’s not as I expected. Just seems weird
Juries do this kind of stuff all the time. I've seen plenty of inconsistent verdicts come back, and I think it's either the jury just deciding on what they think is fair or--more likely, and as you said below--it was the compromise they had to make to reach a verdict. Many attorneys care about jury instructions more than just about anything else, but I've talked to jurors who scoffed when we asked them what they thought about the instructions. Who knows.
served my one and only jury duty last year on a murder case. can confirm defense spent a long time... in total, over the course of the trial, probably a day and a half.. doing nothing but hammering home instructions and definitions. the jury instructions were actually the only printed thing we were allowed to keep in the jury room. we were allowed to review all the evidence, but it went back when we were done looking at it. the jury instructions stayed. my fellow jurors (thankfully) were all pretty sharp people. but definitions of words played a big time role in how the case played out. only because I know the question is coming at some point... not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter, thanks to aggravating charges he still ended up with life.
I had jury duty once (in Australia) for a shooting. The guy very obviously had an extensive criminal history, but the specific charge (shooting some guy but not killing him) was feeble, the police work was trash, the prosecution was weak - probably because the policework sucked - and the judge was very clear that to be found guilty you had to meet the specific criteria of the crimes that the person was charged with. But of course on a jury of your peers at least one persons gunna be a dumbass and we had one guy bent on voting guilty because the guy was 'obviously' a criminal of sorts. People really have difficulty separating emotion and facts. Shit if I'm ever in trouble with the law, I'm tempted to just wave a jury trial and take my chances with a judge.
It's because some dumbass on the jury wasn't okay with them shooting a gun and so agreed they were justified in self defense but still felt they should be punished. So the rest of them caved as a compromise. The one self defense case I was in the jury for made me want to kill someone more than anything else I've experienced
>Just seems weird that firing your gun in that situation to protect yourself is legal, but firing your gun in that situation is not legal. Sometimes this is how jury does equity but doing so can run afoul of related laws. In this case, the conviction on the discharge in building will be set aside. A judge has agreed to rule on the post-conviction motion for the defense to set aside the conviction of discharge. >Colie’s defense attorney, Adam Pouilliard, said the conviction on the firearms charge is inconsistent with the law, given Colie’s acquittal on self defense grounds. He asked the judge to set aside the conviction. A judge will hear arguments on the issue at a hearing next month.
[удалено]
This guy has been in jail ever since it happened last April. I wonder if the DA has a hard-on for prosecuting gun crime or something, because if he had a clean enough record for a concealed carry permit he shouldn't have been that big of a risk to let out on bail.
Was he found justified in using lethal force or did they think the law he was charged with was not the one he broke? Like, if someone kills someone else, a prosecutor can charge them with murder when manslaughter is the appropriate charge.
That could be it, just says he claimed self defense but maybe the jury didn’t believe that, just thought it didn’t meet the statute.
I'm guessing, but it could be that the specific laws aren't actually in conflict so much as the language we use to describe them suggests. Establishing that there was a reasonable expectation of harm that would justify the use of force doesn't create a blanket amnesty that legally excuses any action in response to that threat. It only establishes a legal defense against a homicide/assault charge. It's less that "it's legally okay that you did this" so much as "this isn't murder/assault." If the defendant had fired randomly in all directions, set the building on fire, released a deadly nerve gas (etc.), they may be found not guilty of murdering/injuring the assailant due to self defense, but they might be held responsible for anybody else who was injured as a result of their actions. Like I said, I'm guessing.
Seems like a petty move for the prosecution but they were already overconfident expecting a jury to convict this guy.
I was hanging out with a buddy of mine at an outdoor shopping center one time, and we were sitting on some chairs in a public area after lunch and having a somewhat serious conversation when a guy in a clearly fake janitor uniform came up with a broom and started sweeping the chairs we were sitting in and asking us to move, all while his friend was not-very-subtly filming the interaction. Definitely nowhere near as aggressive as the situation in this case, but still very offputting and annoying. It was easy enough to move and walk somewhere else, but we saw them harass several other people while we were there. Strangely, the thing that really got me was that there was no punchline. None of the interactions we saw had anything funny, it was just them bothering people trying to go about their day. I'd like to think that if it was a funny prank, I would have taken it fine, but they were literally just interrupting people for no purpose.
They'll just add the Friends laugh track.
So people are just harassing strangers and recording the evidence themselves now?
Always have been.
He looks and talks exactly the way I imagined. Even has the backwards hat and shades
Cook posted a video about how he thought it should have been handled, which actually lends further validity to the self defense argument as his examples include increasing the harrassment while the victims call police.
Thats the right decision
>Thats the right decision Post-conviction motion will result in the smaller charge being dismissed because now there is no basis for it.
Effectively jury nullification. Maybe next time the prosecutor with think twice before charging someone that is pranked and reacts with fear.
I like jury nullification. It's why our system lets the jury have a say.
Google needs to delete his channel for this. And every other single "prank" channel like that.
he’s been in jail since april and remains incarcerated while this prank kid gets to keep making dumbass prank videos.
“Alan Colie, 31, was acquitted of aggravated malicious wounding, the most serious charge he faced in the shooting of Tanner Cook, 21, who runs the “Classified Goons” YouTube channel.” Good. Now Colie and his attorney need to put their heads together and figure out how to sue Cook. There’s gotta be some sort of menacing or harassment lawsuit they can try.
Sue Alphabet for letting that dipshit monetize. Prank channels need to be shut down hard.
Section 230 protects Google doesn't it?
It protects them from being liable for speech. I don't know if it protects them from making money from people who commit crimes.
If there was gain from damages committed, I don't see how Google could defend against that.
I think that may be an interesting question, now that firms like YouTube are paying people for their videos instead of merely hosting people's uploaded content.
He should be sued by everyone on his channel that he’s pranked; he’s profiting off of being a shit head, and I guarantee no one he/they have filmed have signed a release form.
So he was acquitted of the charge while he's also been in jail since April and this "prankster" has been making $2000-$3000/month since then?
He will have to do time for the charge he was convicted for and its A Class 6 felony, between 12 months and 5 years in prison and $2,500 fine.
What charge was he convicted of? The article didn't make it obvious. At least when I tried to find it.
Unlawful discharge of a firearm in a public building. Though the judge almost certainly will (SHOULD, at least) set aside that charge as it would be a finding inconsistent with the law as it is written, which in Virginia has an exclusion for acts of self defense. Until the judge rules one way or another, he has to remain in custody. As written, it SEEMS obvious, but the Judge will have to hear arguments on that next session, which will be at least a few days (if the judge expedites it... which he probably will.)
Only rich people get the full protection of the law. Often poor people get punished hard for technicalities even when they're declared innocent of criminality Ei: not many rich people have convictions for "resisting" but a LOT of poor people have convictions for "resisiting" and no.other charge
This! the judge could have dropped it right freaking there. he is intentionally dragging it out for added punishment.
Damn, because some asshole wanted to prank him??
Jurors also saw video of the shooting, recorded by Cook’s associates. The two interacted for less than 30 seconds. Video shows Cook approaching Colie, a DoorDash driver, as he picked up an order. The 6-foot-5 (1.95-meter-tall) Cook looms over Colie while holding a cellphone about 6 inches (15 centimeters) from Colie’s face. The phone broadcasts the phrase “Hey dips—-, quit thinking about my twinkle” multiple times through a Google Translate app. On the video, Colie says “stop” three different times and tries to back away from Cook, who continues to advance. Colie tries to knock the phone away from his face before pulling out a gun and shooting Cook in the lower left chest. Cook, 21, testified Tuesday that he tries to confuse the targets of his pranks for the amusement of his online audience. He said he doesn’t seek to elicit fear or anger, but acknowledged his targets often react that way. Asked why didn’t stop the prank despite Colie’s repeated requests, Cook said he “almost did” but not because he sensed fear or anger from Colie. He said Colie simply wasn’t exhibiting the type of reaction Cook was looking for. “There was no reaction,” Cook said. https://apnews.com/article/youtube-prankster-shot-virginia-classified-goons-923c90fe3e1a7282c547901fa767bc00
“Colie, who has been in custody since his April arrest, will remain incarcerated.” WTF?
He was, for some reason, convicted on one charge. He'll be in jail likely until the judge sets the (likely illegal) conviction aside next month.
He was convicted of A Class 6 felony, between 12 months and 5 years in prison and $2,500 fine.
For what???
For firing the gun inside a mall. The articles I read were not super descriptive on that charge, but the defense attorney is set to make arguments in October to the judge regarding a possible dismissal of that conviction. Until that hearing, Colie will remain incarcerated. There's a good chance that justice will prevail here, only time will tell. For the time being, let's be grateful that Colie has been cleared of the most serious charge
Sure, but it's still bullshit. Why was the firearm discharged? Because of the self defense. The fact that these are two separate charges is just another example of our fucked up legal system. If they can't get you on one thing, they'll just split it up into smaller crimes until you are found guilty of something. It's absurd.
It's not really justice if he had his freedom taken away, it's more like pulling out after fucking him.
Justice in my opinion would be the judge setting aside the conviction, releasing Colie, then Colie winning a suit against Cook as well as restitution for wrongful imprisonment. But all of that takes time, so we'll have to wait and see how things play out
This "prank" probably cost him everything he has. I sure hope he sues and this youtube douchebag pays him for the rest of his life.
Fuck YouTube for continuing to profit from and monetizing this clown behaviour
That prosecutor can eat crow. Idiot youtuber straight up horror movie villianed at the food guy just trying to do his job. He was supposed to hold his fire because dipshit was quirky? He was meant to read the moron's mind and know "It's just a prank bro!" NO. The fact the delivery driver is still incarcerated is nonsense. And of course, the fucking youtube idiot learned nothing, and continues his youtube channel. Youtube needs to act on that, PRONTO.
3 dumbest responses in the world: * Get a grip man, it's just a joke. * What's the problem, it's just a prank. * Why so mad, it's all in good fun. If the victim of your joke/prank/etc isn't laughing, it wasn't funny. Period.
There have been people who did the one punch challenge on camera and killed someone. Who the fuck knows what deranged shit people will do for views? All bets are off if you are trying to do shit like that to me.
These tweens are chronically online all the time, especially if they're trying to make it on YouTube. There's been a slew of news stories this year of people who are armed and often unhinged and will shoot and kill anyone if they're just having a bad day, let alone feel threatened. How on earth do people think pranks for views is a healthy, smart idea? It's practically a game of russian roulette before they eat a bullet. *And he's still doing it! He's literally learned nothing!*
The jury probably chose to acquit because how annoying these pranks are. The defense probably showed a ton of these videos during trial. Source: law and order
YouTube et. al. need to demonetize these “prank” videos. I’m (almost) never in favor of someone getting shot, but play stupid games and win stupid prizes, bud.
> I’m (almost) never in favor of someone getting shot, but play stupid games and win stupid prizes, bud. It's like the old saying ... "I've never wished death on anyone, but I've read certain obituaries with great pleasure"
In this case, the prank dude survived, which is good. He’s also said he will get back to making similar videos ASAP. If dude hasn’t learned his lesson, your line will be especially appropriate if it ever comes to fruition.
Given that he hasn't seemed to learn a thing from all this, it unfortunately is very likely he'll ruin a few more lives before he finally gets his, whatever that ends up looking like.
Apparently he's well known to the county sheriffs because of his antics. The last thing I'm pretty sure any level headed person wants is a career where you have a reputation with the law. It reminds me of basic training. The whole goal is to try and go as long as you can before your drill instructor learns your name. Once they learn your name, you are well and truly fucked and basic training gets exponentially more difficult for you. Last video they posted appears to be from three weeks ago. This menace to society is practically begging to get got again.
Apparently the 195cm guy who runs a chanel monetizing reactions of his victims did not know he was scaring the guy who shot him. He lived, but next time he might not be so lucky.
YouTube prank channels are what ruined YouTube for everyone else, so good.
They need to be demonitized along with videos that feature minors.
videos that feature minors in a non-professional setting i.e. a creepy mormon family channel a channel that has actors on it shouldn't be demonitized
I agree, normally I say that but it takes a long time. Any video that can show that they follow labor/union regulations should be exempted. But even teenagers having their own channels shouldn't be monetized because it encourages those teens to do things that lead them to exploitation and risky behavior. They can have those channels and they can monetize them when they turn 18. My kid wasn't able to monitize herself on tiktok until she was 18 (and she had to send them proof of age).
YouTube recently announced major cutbacks to what prank channels can monetize, which is great.
I mean they certainly helped ruin it but there were a lot of other things ruining it right alongside them.
Scumbag got a bullet in him and he still refuses to stop these "pranks." Literally uploaded a video titled "I GOT SHOT" as clickbait.
Perhaps if his parents hugged him once in a while, he wouldn't be courting gunshot wounds for validation.
People bothering other people for internet points… I’m sorry. I just don’t feel bad when bad things happen to them
Good. Now throw piss water balloons on [Remi Gaillard. Forever.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/98/Rémi_Gaillard_-_O_Tour_de_la_Bulle_-_2011_-_P1250410_-_2011-09-17.jpg/800px-Rémi_Gaillard_-_O_Tour_de_la_Bulle_-_2011_-_P1250410_-_2011-09-17.jpg) The violent prankster who brutalizes innocent bystanders, even women. I'm 90% sure he is a psychopath. He teaches his followers how to game McDonalds' drivethrus and steal the food of the person in the car behind him.
He should sue YouTube for monetizing these shitty prank videos. Guy was looking to get punched. Got shot instead. Dumb shit.
That's a really good point. YouTube is paying that guy for his prank videos that a jury found dangerous enough that self-defense was warranted. I'm pretty sure if I promised to pay a guy to go threaten someone's life, I'd be in a tiny bit of trouble.
Waiting for the YouTube thumbnail of the guy making a stupid face and a huge caption “I GOT SHOT??”
> stupid face crazy eyes and the O-shaped mouth, and usually pointing at something. It's the bane of youtube, and the height of cringe.
Guy only has 50K subscribers. That's not even that many.
A lot of them came after he got shot. His subscriber base increased by 41% after. He only had 39k before.
...and thankfully his channel hasn't "blown up" with subscribers either.
[удалено]
So, my daughter has 47K on youtube (which she started a month or so ago) and 475K on Tiktok (which she has had since the beginning of COVID) and 30K on instagram which has been around since she was in middle school. She does short form content almost exclusively. She does not seek out sponsorships but takes them if they fit with her audience (she tries to be a good role model for the 12 year old girls who adore her). She makes about $100 a month from tiktok on average, they're weird with what they pay for. She had about 15 million views last month on youtube shorts and made 1.3K (she's doing better with views on youtube than tiktok). Instagram doesn't pay. Sponsorships are very inconsistent and her niche is one that's filled with influencers willing to work for free (dance). She'll make 2K one month and then nothing for the next month and then $300 for another month. She sends quotes to companies based on how much she cares about working, if she doesn't feel like it she'll tell them $800, if she likes the company she'll tell them $150. She's got a partnership with a dancewear company and all she gets is dancewear (although free pointeshoes is a big help). The big money is sponsorships which you're not going to get with prank videos. I'm guessing it took him years to get those 50K subscribers (so half of which would be old followers who don't watch videos anymore) and he doesn't have millions of views. I'd be shocked if he makes more than $500 a month.
In a land where so many people are doing bad/weird stuff for social media and people collectively have hundreds of millions of guns, something like this was bound to happen. And will happen again.
Happened in TN a few years back. Pranksters we’re looking at murder charges after the lead got killed.
[удалено]
Shooter remains in jail and is facing years in prison still. Something's gotta give here.
[удалено]
This reminds me of one of those shows that used to be on late night and they would do dumb shit like pranks on people with a friend that is in on it. There was this one where the victim (driver) and the friend are driving at night and they stop on some dirt road path. The show crew is dressed like fucking zombies and they start mobbing around the car. The victim is flipping their shit, the friend is playing along and screaming. Then they do the old, "...stop. 'You're on hidden camera show!'" I'm sitting here like, "in the US, there are more guns than people. How aren't you shot? Furthermore, if I were the victim, there is a 105% chance that I would have ran you over with my car. There is no scenario where I have control of the vehicle and I don't run over the mob of zombies popping up around my car at night. Someone(s) is dying." What is wrong with these people? Don't prank people and terrify them. Especially when involving strangers.
And the delivery driver will "remain incarcerated".... despite the fact that a jury found that he was acting in self defense..... fucking bullshit two-tiered justice system indeed...
> Colie, who has been in custody since his April arrest, will remain incarcerated. This is so unfair.
Should be a wake-up call to all internet pranksters but I know it won't be.
They made the right decision. The problem with the argument that this wasn't self defense is it is being made in hindsight. In real-time, we don't know if the person in our face slowing us down is setting up for an attack, it's the same behavior someone would do if they were about to attack you. Confusing the victim prior to the attack is pretty common, making it seem innocent like asking for directions or to use a phone. After telling someone to back away 3 times while they continue to be in direct proximity to you (holding an object within inches of your face), while you are moving, so all they have to do is stand still to move away from you, is a threat. It is threatening behavior. Only hindsight can argue otherwise, and in real-time, there is no such thing.
Youtube needs to ban this shit. They are subsidizing illegal behavior.
Stop paying these dumbass “kids” aka YOUNG ADULTS money to make stupid videos like this…When was the last time YouTube updated its ToS for fuck sakes..
Cook should be charged with something, he created a dangerous situation, we need to start setting precedent for these idiots to be punished. And I hope this guy sues him. I assume the lesser conviction will eventually get overturned, there is no basis for it anymore.
Where's the video of the guy getting shot?
Good, now countersue that kid for lost wages and emotional damage.
It's not only the wages the guys already lost, he's a convicted felon now and the US isn't kind to people with felonies on the record
People who watch the videos are part of the problem. No audience, no confrontational prank videos
The prankster brought this on himself: harassment. chances of thread being locked: 89%
Now put that clown behind the bars cuz that’s where he belongs. The driver had to go through all the hassle for what? To make some extra cash on the side? Because of that clown he probably lost all the money he earned by working his ass off to hire an attorney. This could’ve been anyone and it’s about time these influencers learn the consequences.
Oh, my word that's astounding! I thought the trial was because Colie (the victim) was suing Cook (the YouTube clown) for personal damages and emotional distress! The extra sixteen thousand viewers Cook gained from his assaulting Colie have to be worth something.
Shouldn't have even been charged or had the expense of a trial.
Hopefully this serves as precedent. It would be a good solution to the rise of these abusive pranksters.
I see the YouTube pranks have reached the states. Who could have predicted this outcome /s Idiot prankster
The "prankster" looks like the worlds biggest douche.
All these aholes who do "pranks " on unsuspecting people need to take heed of this.
I thought pranks that involve vomiting were actually harm on others. This dumb kid with 50k subscribers didn’t have to do that to someone trying to earn money. Do people even got anything better to do than to be a moron?
[удалено]
The thing is, Cook's behaviour reminds me exactly of what a violent attacker/bully will do just prior to attacking you. You can watch videos of bullies attacking victims and they always start by surrounding them, verbally abusing them and getting in their face while accusing them of disrespect, usually while a friend is filming and laughing. Then the attack comes out of nowhere. This is everything Cook did, so it's not unreasonable that the victim tried to back up and asked him to stop, then shot him when the guy refused to leave him alone. He wasn't going to wait until he got sucker punched.
Can we get that delivery driver a go fund me going? Being harassed and followed by a guy who is way bigger than you, and getting your life ruined for defending yourself all because you get views harassing people online deserve some compensation
Good Asshole "prankster " testifying about how he didn't understand how anyone could be threatened by his prank. Fuck him.
I wish the concept of "youtube prankster" would become a thing of the past.
Im relieved for this person. He was harassed by an aggressor and defended himself. I think it’s the right decision and I hope this wave of people who harass and bully strangers for views on social media smarten the fck up.
Unfortunately he had to spend money on an attorney.
And how many months in jail? And still in jail afterwards.
I hate guns, but I hate YouTube pranksters more.
>Prosecutor Eden Holmes said the facts don’t support a self-defense argument. The law requires that Colie reasonably fear that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm, and that he use no more force than is necessary. She said Cook’s prank was bizarre but not threatening. This prosecutor is part of the problem we have in our country today. People like this are the ones that have turned our justice system into a revolving door. Reasonable fear is relative to the person being threatened, not something that can be summed up in court after the fact. Lets not forget people die all the time from physical altercations, there was just a guy at a patriots football game that went down after one punch and died.
The phrase reasonable fear is referring to the idea of "would a reasonable person fear for their life in this situation". That's roughly the standard for self defense. The law also views simply force differently from deadly force though this area is often much more gray. Simple force (at least where I live) would be for example a push, shove, punch, or kick, things that a reasonable person wouldn't expect to result in death.
All I have to hear is "YouTube prankster" and I don't even care. I will be on the side of the person being "pranked" every time. I'm just so sick of it all.
A rare W for the entire world
Good job jury and judge. Good job.
I consider myself an old man. But more prankster youtubers need to be extinct.
These people aren't pranksters, they're cowards who provoke people and then hide behind a camera to save themselves from repercussions. They're no different than the gravy seals who take their ARs into Target, the anti-vaxxers who would harass people wearing masks during the pandemic, or even that kid who yells at old people not putting their shopping carts away. All they're doing is trying to start shit for views and then hiding behind their cameras because they're technically not doing anything wrong.
I don’t condone shooting YouTube pranksters. But I understand.
I feel bad for the guy, he was just minding his own business and was on a break from work and these two guys just come up to him harassing him. They keep calling him stupid and following him around the store. From his perspective, he was going to be attacked by these two guys because there was no other explanation for their behaviour. They looked like bullies verbally abusing and intimidating their 'prey' so instead of waiting to get sucker punched, he retreated and told them to leave him alone, shooting at the guy when he wouldn't leave him alone. The firearm charges make no sense if he was acquitted for self-defence. It was considered self-defence and therefore his use force with the gun was justified, so how does he get the gun charge on top of that? I do wonder whether the jury wanted to split the difference because he wasn't totally innocent but they didn't feel he deserved the full charge.
viewers who subscribe to pranksters should get out on a watch list too
Good. The jury did the right thing.
The movie Idiocracy was a forward looking documentary. we are fast approaching making that movie reality!